I really don’t like that the graphs aren’t across the same period of time.
I didn’t notice until you pointed it out. Because why wouldn’t they be??
Because there’s lies, damned lies, and statistics…
Presumably they are starting wherever the trend “started”, although I’d like to see what it was doing before that to see if this is an unusual trend or not
Because gaps in data are a thing? I dunno, it doesn’t really seem to change the story or the outcome. Your concerns seem overblown.
Then attention should be drawn to the fact that the timelines are different. The data is presented in a misleading way and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Axes should remain the same with the lines missing at parts where there are missing data. This makes it clear
deleted by creator
That’s funny, because that’s exactly what they did.
Omg I didn’t even notice that. It’s like the more you look at this the worse it gets.
I’m guessing the data sets they used were collected at different start times and they didn’t want to truncate it
yes thats probably why but then maybe they should’ve left a white space instead
Oh boy liberal vs conservative, what a wide variety of political opinion allowed for by the “financial times”
I don’t think they use the definition of liberal that you think they’re using.
They’re not, this is the traditional polling version of liberal vs. conservative — the one that everyone who is not terminally online uses and can understand as it has been around for over a century.
It wouldn’t make sense to ask people are you conservative or conservative, would it?
Exactly. And these terms have been used in both academic and general public forums for a very long time. It’s such a weird thing to get hung up on.
They’re not, this is the traditional polling version of liberal vs. conservative — the one that everyone who is not terminally online uses
How do you describe the right wing ideology of liberalism in a not confusing way without rejecting liberalism=left as a definition?
Easy, I use political science terms and traditional analysis instead of terminally online ones. The important thing to remember is that liberal vs. conservative is an ideological midpoint for the discourse being discussed and/or measured. You can apply this to any group or discourse — in the OP it’s being applied to the whole of a nation’s body politic. However, you can just as easily apply such a division to only self-described leftists — thus creating a conservative subgroup who still exist well to the left side of the entire population, but are to the right of the other ideological half of the spectrum of this subgroup.
There isn’t an objective midpoint in ideology that applies across political systems and time. Which is good, because the overall trend throughout history is leftward and a relative system is able to both capture that as well as provide descriptive value for a given measurement period.
Easy, I use political science terms and traditional analysis
I literally use “liberal” to mean liberal capitalist because I read political economics books. When you say “political science” and “traditional analysis” you are referring to something that is a lot less universal than you think it is.
Also like how do you talk about liberalism and neoliberalism in a non confusing way while also claiming liberalism is left? You didn’t answer my question you just took a swipe.
The important thing to remember is that liberal vs. conservative is an ideological midpoint for the discourse being discussed and/or measured
Except this is a very narrow overton window(more like an arrow slit) and if you limit your discussion to it you miss a lot of context and analysis.
Which is good, because the overall trend throughout history is leftward and a relative system is able to both capture that as well as provide descriptive value for a given measurement period.
This is kinda unfalsifiable
Also like how do you talk about liberalism and neoliberalism in a non confusing way while also claiming liberalism is left?You make it clear with your audience that you’re talking about the “liberal” in the economic sense and not “liberal” in the philosophical sense. From a philosophical perspective is the difference between being pro changes (liberal) vs being against changes (conservative), and as the person previously mentioned, in this sense you could say there are conservative communists (want to follow Marx’s philosophy to the letter) and liberal communists (believe in the basic principles but feel some things need to be adjusted), just like there are liberal conservatives (believe in small/efficient State but individual freedoms) and conservative conservatives (social conservatives).
You make it clear with your audience that you’re talking about the “liberal” in the economic sense and not “liberal” in the philosophical sense.
Liberalism as a philosophy is connected to the economic structure? Are you referring to a different philosophy and calling it liberal?
From a philosophical perspective is the difference between being pro changes (liberal) vs being against changes (conservative)
Okay, yes, you are. Liberalism is literally the status quo.
in this sense you could say there are conservative communists (want to follow Marx’s philosophy to the letter) and liberal communists (believe in the basic principles but feel some things need to be adjusted)
You literally can’t be a marxist and take Marx as dogma. Marxism is a process based ideology.
the right wing ideology of liberalism
WTF do you think “liberalism” means? It’s the opposite of authoritarianism, it’s not really left or right.
Liberalism is individualist above all in my mind. What advances your personal freedom is the best thing for everyone. Neoliberalism is a post-Keynesian consensus that believes this is most achievable through equal opportunity in the free market.
I also like Phil Ochs definition of liberal from the 60s, "ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right of center when it affects them personally.
Liberalism is an economic system.
OK, that’s a new one to me. Know that when you use the word in most contexts that’s not what people think you mean by it!
Well, most people have been miseducated on politics and the economy in the United States.
Also, outside of opinion pieces, the FT tends to be fairly central, as it’s generally purchased by people who want information to make financial decisions with.
FT is pretty solid when it comes to data analysis like this. The point is to show a specific trend not to encompass all the data in the sources.
I think they understood “liberal” to mean “classical liberal” which obviously would have the issue they point out. But FT seems to be using “liberal” to mean “progressive” or something like that.
Right and righter.
What other social ideology is there?
Most of these are political ideologies. I asked for social ideologies.
It’s clear what liberal and conservative means here.
They’re the same thing. Politics are simply a manifestation of a persons social values.
Agree to disagree. Liberal in this context means not forcing women to have children, not suppressing LGBTQ community, and not discriminating people based on their race, gender, or sexuality.
Reserve this ‘right and righter’ snark for some other time, when it’s applicable.
Yes, these graphs don’t many any sense other than generating clicks.
I don’t know about beautiful data. That’s scary data :/
It’s only beautiful in that is well visualized. The data itself is scary.
The graps don’t represent the same amount of time while they are there for comparison. I wouldn’t call that well visualized.
South Korea is expanded, which reduces the appearance of disparity. Germany has an extra 10 years. But despite those issues the data is still compelling.
Do you know a community that fits?
Nah, here is fine, the data is presented beautifully.
Except the time frame is shifted for each graph
+1 this. This community isn’t about agreeing with the data, it’s about how it’s presented
No no, that’s not what I meant. I wasn’t trying to have a go at you. It fits here perfectly. I was just upset at the trend it was showing :\
The data is beautiful, it’s the implications that are ugly
Is this American liberal or real liberal?
It’s Burgerland liberal, which is center-left to right. Burgerland conservative is right to fash.
Or American conservative or real conservative
It’s relative to the nationstate’s domestic policies in question. And just a heads up, I know when people make statements like this it just reveals a lack of understanding regarding foreign countries’ domestic politics. However, it’s also important to point out that the meme itself is incredibly ethnocentric and is fundamentally based on a dismissal of the validity of political discourse outside Western Europe and North America. You don’t mean to be racist, right?
This “meme” is not ethnocentric. Liberalism has a definition. The meaning became lost to Americans thanks to two red scares and a cold war. So now you have centrists like Bernie Sanders calling themselves socialist, which is absolutely not true.
Bernie believes in the eradication of capitalism, he’s a socialist working in a fucked over Overton window that means the best policies he can argue for would fall under social democracy at best.
Which, to be very clear, makes him a raging commie by American political standards.
The only people who argue he’s a capitalist are people that think socialism is when poor.
Bernie believes in the eradication of capitalism
No, he believes in the eradication of “über” capitalism, as his new book states: It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism. He is a There Is No Alternative, Nordic model welfare capitalist. He never has and never will call for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production.
He specifically describes himself as a democratic socialist instead of a social democrat but I also haven’t read the book so feel free to quote an excerpt from it saying he thinks the capitalist model is the only viable one.
During Sander’s 2020 presidential campaign he called for corporate accountability reform which would have given workers the ability to elect a portion of the board of directors for the corporation they work for.
That is a feature of the Nordic model—as I said above—and is still capitalism: Worker representation on corporate boards of directors
I’m about as far-left as they come. I want to understand.
What would it mean in terms of policy to “call for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production”? Would you prefer something closer to the Meidner Plan? Because that’s further left than Bernie’s plan but could also be considered part of the “Nordic Model”.
As far as I can tell, this kind of rhetoric stems from a lack of understanding of the economic similarities between the “Nordic Model” and Chinese-style communism.
Socialism can develop differently in different countries. As such I believe that it’s better to engage in international solidarity, rather than nit pick differences.
But, I’m open to being wrong.
deleted by creator
Liberalism actually has a lot of definitions. It is a classical philosophical concept, a modern political philosophical concept, a term to describe a lower value of risk aversion, a term to mean supplied in abundance, and (here) a political science term used to describe an entire half of a relative political spectrum whose center point is determined by the specific body politic being measured. So, big shooter, no you are mistaken at a very basic level. All nations have both a liberal and conservative spectrum within their own political system. And, just to raise your level of education on the subject, you know what? Even within those subgroups, there is a liberal and conservative divide based on the relative ideology of the subgroup. And fun fact, you can yet still divide those subgroups of subgroups — this is a large part of how the phenomenon of group polarization happens.
All nations have both a liberal and conservative spectrum within their own political system.
See, here we have an Overton window that only allows for liberalism, as if socialism doesn’t exist. As if the political spectrum only goes from center-left to right, erasing the left altogether. The left is erased because Burgerland purged them.
“American” is hardly an ethnicity (except maybe if you are referring to native Americans of course), so this has nothing to do with racism. Secondly I assume the author of the comment is refering to the simple fact that the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have drastically different connotations in Europe and the US.
They also have drastically different connotations in America depending on whether the user can read a book.
I think it’s a higher bar of actually reading one. Only around 20% of Americans read a book, any book, within the ages 18-29.
deleted by creator
not surprising. the american right is specifically catered to address male grievances.
not fix these grievances mind you, but exploit them
This data is the World world, not just “America world”.
Also, if men are going right, then the left needs to step up their offering.
“When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”
While this is true, it’s also true that pendulum swings can go further in the opposite direction than equality.
While a trite example, in the recent Barbie film, at the end when things are going back to the seemingly good way, the men in Barbieland ask if they can have a seat on the supreme court and are told no, which is then explained as Barbieland being a mirror to the real world such that as there’s increased equality in the real world then equality for men in the mirror would increase.
Apparently the writers weren’t familiar with the fact there’s four women on the supreme court right now and a woman has been on the court since 1981 (around twice as close to the creation of Barbie than to the present day).
Even in the context of its justifiably imbalanced equality it failed to be proportionally imbalanced.
There’s interesting research around how the privileged underestimate the degree to which the good things that happen to them are because of privilege, but that at the same time the underprivileged overestimate how often the bad things which happen are because of bias. In theory both are ego-preserving adaptations. But it also means that either side is going to have a difficult time correctly identifying equality from their relative subjective perspectives.
While a trite example, in the recent Barbie film
You mean self aware, hyperbolic satire?
They know there have been women on the supreme court. It was a reference to second wave feminism, and inverted because that was the joke.
Correct. Why would anyone go for a worse option for themselves?
Edit: A benefit to one group does not mean a detriment to others. This is not a zero sum game.
The funny thing is that the left could offer so many things for men:
- address mental health issues
- paternal leave / support for fatherhood
- Less dangerous work
- rehabilitation in prisons
- a free lamborghini
- address homelessness
All of which are mostly men issues.
Is it really worse? Or does it just hurt your feels when women can decide something on their own?
Why not both? Benefit to women, and benefit to men.
This isn’t a zero sum game.
You’re not wrong, but the wage gap? Not going to close if we give everyone a raise. It would be the same wage gap.
The gender pay gap is insignificant and inconsequential compared to the income differences between working and owning classes. Also, much of the pay gap is due to men culturally tending to not have the option of escaping the grindset. “Honey I’m going to quit my job and do something that doesn’t alienate me, yes it’s going to pay less” is not something universally accepted by wives.
I’m pretty sure that by this point most reasonable people have realized that the wage gap is a myth, so that’s probably not your best example.
Name one thing thats gotten better for men in 50 years.
being gay is more accepted. there’s also much less pressure to conform to masculine standards. e.g., being able to talk about feelings, expressing yourself in fashion/makeup, joining in traditionally feminine careers like
nursing/teaching (both of which have exploded in the past 50 years). just to name a fewthey also haven’t used the draft in 50 yearsedit: striked through things are either factually incorrect (nursing) or more nuanced than my original comment implied (military draft)
being gay is more accepted.
Fair. A win for all.
there’s also much less pressure to conform to masculine standards. e.g., being able to talk about feelings
Not the wider experience. Men are still stigmatised for expressing themselves. Example: how often do men get to be emotionally vulnerable in a public setting compared to women?
joining in traditionally feminine careers like nursing/teaching
This is flat out wrong, it’s actually getting worse.
https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/gender-equality-and-through-teaching-profession
Sex ratios in healthcare occupations: population based study.
they also haven’t used the draft in 50 years
That’s because there are enough men who are financially destitute, who sell their lives into the military.
Don’t need a draft when there is enough blood money going around.
The fact that I can’t wear a skirt in public without facing backlash, but a woman wearing pants is seen as normal makes me feel like there is still a lot of progress we have to make. I guess it’s equivalent would be women going topless casually. I really hate conservative/puritan values.
Here’s 3.
- Addressing men’s mental health. Normalizing therapy and talking about issues.
- Promoting ideals and examples of healthy intimate relationships: communication, setting boundaries, etc.
- Moving a way from the insecure, performative, fucked up version of “masculinity” – e.g. “I can’t wear pink, play with dolls with my kid, or bake because those things are feminine”.
Yeah, fuck men who want to wear blue and play with cars. Being a man isn’t allowed. Unless you accept feminization, you’re the enemy. No wonder men choose to vote for the bad guys, when the “good” side demand that they play a role as weak.
Why do things need to get better for men? Things have been pretty excellent for men for a very very long time.
- high suicide rate
- male loneliness has always been terrible and it’s on the rise
- 19 out of 20 deaths at the work place are men
- most likely to have poor work-life balance
- most likely to be imprisoned
- most likely to be homeless
- most likely to NOT get custody of the kids they love
Pretty excellent, aye? These men just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Why would anyone go for a worse option for themselves?
Because if everyone only voted for the things that benefit them, then it’s possible to end up in a situation that’s worse for everybody. If the majorities repeatedly votes for a small benefit to themselves and a large detriment to everyone else, this is basically guaranteed to happen. This is also why voting out of spite is a bad idea.
Example: Let’s examine a population consisting of 60% white people and 60% Christians, uncorrelated (so 36% white Christians, 24% nonwhite Christians, 24% white non-Christians, and 16% nonwhite non-Christians). This population is making two votes: one that will be Very Bad for nonwhites, and one that will be Very Bad for non-Christians, with a small benefit to white people or Christians respectively. Both will pass, which results in:
-
36% of the population (white Christians) gets two small benefits
-
48% of the population (white non-Christians and nonwhite Christians combined) gets a small benefit and something Very Bad for them
-
16% of the population (nonwhite non-Christians) gets two Very Bad results passed against them
So the overall result is negative for 64% of the population, despite everyone voting for their interests and everyone voting! This is because the legislation was more bad for the minority than it was good for the majority.
Bonus: I believe you can use this to prove that you can use a sequence of legislation to get into literally any position you want if everyone votes strictly for things that help them, and I saw a good YT video on that topic, but I can’t find it right now.
If the majorities repeatedly votes for … a large detriment to everyone else
I never argued for this. It is possible to vote in a commensalistic manner.
Only if the appropriate legislation is available to vote on. If the only legislation available is something that hurts you a little and helps someone else a lot, it may be in society’s best interest to vote for it. If you were in a culture that encouraged that, your actions would be repaid by others doing the same, eventually securing large gains for everyone. This is the opposite of my example above, but the math works out the same.
Essentially, there are situations in which the logical choice is to vote for something that hurts you, or to not vote for something that helps you. (Zero-sum-like situations are especially likely to have this occur.) Over a long period of time, what matters is how much each bill helps society overall, not how much it helps you in particular. (Yes, this stops working if the other groups won’t do the same for you.)
-
So we should just let ‘minorities’ suffer? The term appeasement comes to mind, as I don’t know what else you could be advocating here.
